Comments on: Kurtz and Obama: Flip-flopping vs. Mind-changing

By: Neo

Neo — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:01:32 +0000

“inartful” now ranks up there with “inoperative”

“This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.”

By: Leslie B

Leslie B — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:22:15 +0000

Thank you for putting so eloquently and simply what I’ve not been able to but have seen for quite some time. My twin daughters are 18 and getting to vote for the first time. I’m afraid they are both voting for reasons I’ve not been eloquent enough to refute, but maybe I can get them both to read this. This is obviously not all I would like them to know, but it’s a good start. Thank you!

By: Peg C.

Peg C. — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:40:35 +0000

You have to have a mind to change it. Rumors to the contrary, I see no evidence of this in Obama. Or to put it in less simplistic terms, you must have principles and core beliefs in the first place, to make a coherent change or about-face on any of them. Obama shows zero evidence of any core beliefs other than in his own infallibility. Sorry, O: no human is infallible. Get over yourself.

By: Believer

Believer — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:37:29 +0000

“Flip-flopping” connotes rapidity to me, and repetition.

Think of a fish – caught – and hauled onto the deck of a ship. That slimey sucker is not where he wants to be, and he’s flipping and flopping all over the place.

Now think of Obama and his recent address to AIPAC. Two well-received words: “undivided Jerusalem.” They sounded so great at the time; surprising, but great. Less than 24 hours later, Obama was jumping around like a fish out of water.

Yep. Obama can flip and flop within hours on one issue alone. He’s fast alright, maybe not as fast as a fish, but every bit as slimey.

By: Barry Dauphin

Barry Dauphin — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:04:55 +0000

To some degree it depends upon what positions a politician changes (e.g., there’s a difference between core principles and a marginal issue one compromises on) and why (e.g., circumstances change or history steps in). Voters deserve to know there’s some there there. In Obama’s case, I think Terrye nails it: chameleon.

His voting record in the Senate might or might not give us an indication of what he’ll do. He might throw a lot of primary voters under the bus in order to win votes. He might even say something about Iraq indicating that we can disregard what he said before (until he says something else on the subject and we can disregard the latest new thing). But I get the sense he doesn’t believe in much of anything. I wasn’t a fan of Hillarycare, but I think she actually believes in it. I think he follows the polls more than the average politician. He out Clintoned Clinton. Probably explains why Bill is still so mad.

By: Terrye

Terrye — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:50:23 +0000

I think Obama is just politically opportunistic. He is a chameleon.